lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] net: adding memory barrier to the poll and receive callbacks
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:36:30AM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> > > I think Oleg already said this, but you can use directly poll_wait()
> > > without adding another abstraction, and the compiler will drop the double
> > > check for you:
> >
> > I think Oleg told about cosmetics and let Jiri to choose. I'd only
> > add it's not mainly about optimization, but easy showing the main
> > difference, of course depending on taste.
>
> We already have a universally used function to do that, and that's
> poll_wait().
> That code (adding an extra __poll_wait()) was entirely about
> optimizations (otherwise why not use the existing poll_wait()?), so if
> the optimization does not actually take place, IMO it's better to not add
> an extra API.

OK, you're right, it is about optimization! But IMHO mainly about
reading optimization... I simply guess me and probably Jiri too,
after reading Oleg's variant thought about compiler, instead of the
real difference.

Btw., maybe I miss something but I guess Oleg proposed something in
between: inlining __poll_wait(), which would save us 'extra API' and
compiler doubts. (But I still prefer Jiri's choice. ;-)

Jarek P.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-29 20:07    [W:0.087 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site